when I heard the title of the movie.

I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.

A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.

It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.

If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
movie) you will know what it was.

This piqued my curiosity so much that after I watched it, I went searching
online for more information about it.

It turned out that Joe Rantz became a _chemical_ engineer, and so he would
have been improving aviation fuels at Boeing - and automobile fuels at
Union Oil - and so this would have been behind the scenes.

However, another team member, Gordon Adam, was cited as having worked
on the B-17, the B-29, the 707, and the 727, so now I have _some_ airplanes
that I can point to.

George Pocock, featured in the film as the team's boatbuilder, and his
brother Richard, *also* worked for Boeing, designing pontoons for
seaplanes.

I guess this is not as big a coincidence as it seems; Boeing was *based*
in the State of Washington at the time.

Another thing I didn't know when seeing the movie was that the team
was, in one way, anything but an underdog at the Olympics. The U.S.
had also won the men's eight in 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932. And it would go
on to win the men's eight in the _next_ three Olympics after the Berlin
Olympics as well!

Then in 1960, they were only in fifth place, to regain first place in 1964... and
not to win again until 40 years later in 2004!

That would have explained the subplot of others being opposed to the
coach's decision to go with the junior team, because he felt it was the best...
since the safest option would have made sense if the Olympics was going to
be a cakewalk for the United States. Stretching to the ultimate and taking
risks is for when one is less confident of victory. Except, of course, the
issue at that stage was victory for the University of Washington team in the
United States, not the Olympics.

I also came upon a story about Joe Rantz' granddaughter being on an eights
team - however, she didn't pick up an oar until after he died. It's an interesting
coincidence, but not a longstanding family tradition. (As the movie
makes clear, Joe Rantz got into the men's eights because he needed
the money...)

John Savard

At the beginning of the movie "The Boys in the Boat", though, despite the movie going
to great expense to achieve historical accuracy, one flub inadvertently turned the
movie into a science-fiction movie in a sense.
Joe Rantz is shown stuffing a newspaper into his boot to keep his feet warm.
A page from the newspaper is, briefly, clearly visible on screen. One article has
the heading "Missing Girl Found". Another article, in the upper right of the page,
has a larger heading... in Times Roman Bold Italic.
The page looked like it came from a tabloid-sized community newspaper from
the 1970s, and *definitely* not a daily newspaper from the 1930s.
So if he had just read that newspaper, we might have had something not out of
place in the "Back to the Future" franchise.

John Savard

On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 21:05:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>when I heard the title of the movie.
>
>I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.
>
>A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.
>
>It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
>incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
>companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
>and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.
>
>If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
>perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
>overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
>movie) you will know what it was.

The Alumni Association (to which I do not belong) sends me its
quarterly magazine as an advertising promo and, since I went to the U
of W in Seattle, I have read the story. And the tale of the boathouse.

I don't plan on seeing the movie. As I said, I know the story. I don't
need to see it on film.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 12/28/23 08:27, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 21:05:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> when I heard the title of the movie.
>>
>> I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.
>>
>> A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.
>>
>> It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
>> incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
>> companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
>> and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.
>>
>> If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
>> perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
>> overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
>> movie) you will know what it was.
>
> The Alumni Association (to which I do not belong) sends me its
> quarterly magazine as an advertising promo and, since I went to the U
> of W in Seattle, I have read the story. And the tale of the boathouse.
>
> I don't plan on seeing the movie. As I said, I know the story. I don't
> need to see it on film.

I suppose, especially so, since the majority of filming was
done in England, rather than on and near Lake Washington.
Flat. And no mountains in sight.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:16:49 -0800, a425couple
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/28/23 08:27, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 21:05:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> when I heard the title of the movie.
>>>
>>> I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.
>>>
>>> A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.
>>>
>>> It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
>>> incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
>>> companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
>>> and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.
>>>
>>> If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
>>> perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
>>> overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
>>> movie) you will know what it was.
>>
>> The Alumni Association (to which I do not belong) sends me its
>> quarterly magazine as an advertising promo and, since I went to the U
>> of W in Seattle, I have read the story. And the tale of the boathouse.
>>
>> I don't plan on seeing the movie. As I said, I know the story. I don't
>> need to see it on film.
>
>I suppose, especially so, since the majority of filming was
>done in England, rather than on and near Lake Washington.
>Flat. And no mountains in sight.

Oh, well. I wasn't aware of that. The reviews were of the "despite
this major defect, the film is still worth watching" variety.

And, as I say, I've read the story.

Losing a boat race to a bunch of white boys wasn't /nearly/ as
embarassing to Hitler as Jesse Owens was. Master Race -- oh, yeah.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 12/29/23 08:26, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:16:49 -0800, a425couple
> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/23 08:27, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 21:05:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> when I heard the title of the movie.
>>>>
>>>> I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.
>>>>
>>>> A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.
>>>>
>>>> It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
>>>> incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
>>>> companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
>>>> and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.
>>>>
>>>> If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
>>>> perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
>>>> overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
>>>> movie) you will know what it was.
>>>
>>> The Alumni Association (to which I do not belong) sends me its
>>> quarterly magazine as an advertising promo and, since I went to the U
>>> of W in Seattle, I have read the story. And the tale of the boathouse.
>>>
>>> I don't plan on seeing the movie. As I said, I know the story. I don't
>>> need to see it on film.
>>
>> I suppose, especially so, since the majority of filming was
>> done in England, rather than on and near Lake Washington.
>> Flat. And no mountains in sight.
>
> Oh, well. I wasn't aware of that. The reviews were of the "despite
> this major defect, the film is still worth watching" variety.
>
> And, as I say, I've read the story.
>
> Losing a boat race to a bunch of white boys wasn't /nearly/ as
> embarassing to Hitler as Jesse Owens was. Master Race -- oh, yeah.

Well, a touch more:

Daniel James Brown's 'Boys in the Boat'
Broad Street Review
https://www.broadstreetreview.com › Articles
Apr 11, 2016 — The letter revealed a secret Moch's father had kept for
decade: He was Jewish. Brown reports that Moch wept because of “the
terrible pain ...

The Boys in the Boat
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Boys_in_the_Boat
The Boys in the Boat is a true story based on the struggles and
sacrifices ... Jews and other minorities so as to win worldwide applause
for the Games ...

Meanwhile, what years were you at Univ. of Washington?
I attended some in the 1960s. Got my BA elsewhere.
Worked there from 1973 - 2001.
Two of my children graduated from there around 2001.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 19:43:16 -0800, a425couple
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/29/23 08:26, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:16:49 -0800, a425couple
>> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/28/23 08:27, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 21:05:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> when I heard the title of the movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked it up on the Internet, though, and saw what it was really about.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend had some free movie passes, and wanted to take me along.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a heartwarming story, about triumph over adversity, concerning an
>>>>> incident in the lives of three future Boeing engineers, and six other
>>>>> companions of theirs. It was based on a true story that I had never heard of,
>>>>> and in fact most of the movie was historically accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you haven't guessed what the movie was already, when I tell you that
>>>>> perhaps the reason I never heard of it was because this story was
>>>>> overshadowed by that of Jesse Owens, no doubt (if you're familiar with that
>>>>> movie) you will know what it was.
>>>>
>>>> The Alumni Association (to which I do not belong) sends me its
>>>> quarterly magazine as an advertising promo and, since I went to the U
>>>> of W in Seattle, I have read the story. And the tale of the boathouse.
>>>>
>>>> I don't plan on seeing the movie. As I said, I know the story. I don't
>>>> need to see it on film.
>>>
>>> I suppose, especially so, since the majority of filming was
>>> done in England, rather than on and near Lake Washington.
>>> Flat. And no mountains in sight.
>>
>> Oh, well. I wasn't aware of that. The reviews were of the "despite
>> this major defect, the film is still worth watching" variety.
>>
>> And, as I say, I've read the story.
>>
>> Losing a boat race to a bunch of white boys wasn't /nearly/ as
>> embarassing to Hitler as Jesse Owens was. Master Race -- oh, yeah.
>
>Well, a touch more:
>
>Daniel James Brown's 'Boys in the Boat'
>Broad Street Review
>https://www.broadstreetreview.com › Articles
>Apr 11, 2016 — The letter revealed a secret Moch's father had kept for
>decade: He was Jewish. Brown reports that Moch wept because of “the
>terrible pain ...
>
>The Boys in the Boat
>Wikipedia
>https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Boys_in_the_Boat
>The Boys in the Boat is a true story based on the struggles and
>sacrifices ... Jews and other minorities so as to win worldwide applause
>for the Games ...
>
>Meanwhile, what years were you at Univ. of Washington?
>I attended some in the 1960s. Got my BA elsewhere.
>Worked there from 1973 - 2001.
>Two of my children graduated from there around 2001.
>
65-69 BA Sociology
84-87 BS Mathematics

The latter was basically a decompression after being booted out of the
Army for weighing too much. Life eventually resumed, so it clearly
worked!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:

> Daniel James Brown's 'Boys in the Boat'
> Broad Street Review
> https://www.broadstreetreview.com › Articles
> Apr 11, 2016 — The letter revealed a secret Moch's father had kept for
> decade: He was Jewish. Brown reports that Moch wept because of “the
> terrible pain ...

Although your link didn't go directly to the review,

https://www.broadstreetreview.com/articles/daniel-james-browns-boys-in-the-boat

I did find the review, which was of the book rather than the recent
movie based on it.

At one point, the reviewer notes:

"And the rival crews’ boys barely exist. (With the Germans, who are the focus
of the competition, 'barely' is an exaggeration.)"

That's true of the movie as well, but I can hardly see that as a fault. True,
hypothetically, there would be more "human drama" in a story that followed
two opposing teams side by side - whether the other team was in Germany
or in California. But a story about struggling against the weather or other
natural phenomena can also be valid, and this story is that kind of story.

Following, say, rich boys in New England side by side with the team featured
here would not work as drama, but as satire, mockery, or agitprop, and it's
just as well we were spared that.

But, then, what really cheesed me off was these paragraphs from the review:

(begin quote)
Brown goes further in his attempt to give his story weight. Near the book’s
conclusion, he writes that as the American crew swept by the Germans,
Hitler could have seen “heralds of his doom... (for) one day hundreds of
thousands of boys just like them... decent and unassuming, not privileged
or favored... just loyal, committed, and perseverant, would return to Germany
dressed in olive drab, hunting him down.”

This hyperbole seems a bit “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” overlooking as it does
the decent, unassuming millions of Russians who broke Hitler’s armies on
the eastern front, as well as the committed, perseverant industrial workers
who created the war machine that many contemporary historians credit as
the determining factor in the Allies’ victory.
(end quote)

Hey, he also didn't mention the Canadian troops!

But the text quoted in the book really didn't claim that U.S. ground troops
in Europe "won the war", just that they were part of what was fighting
against Hitler.

Neglecting workers in American factories who weren't being shot at
while focusing on the troops is... understandable. Not finding the
military forces... of a nation every bit as evil as Nazi Germany...
worth a mention, if only to avoid muddying the waters with disclaimers
and the like... is also understandable.

So his choice of this to cavil about... invites me to dismiss him on
suspicion of extreme left-wing politics.

And even his first complaint seems like criticizing the book for not
being the kind of book he would have liked to have seen written, as
opposed to evaluating the book on its own terms. So it doesn't
seem like a very good book review.

John Savard

On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> I did find the review, which was of the book rather than the recent
> movie based on it.

Elsewhere, I had read that when Joe Rantz was interviewed for the book,
he asked that the book not be a book about him, but about the team as
a whole.

It's legitimate to point out that the book only lived up to that promise
in one narrow way; it _was_ the story of Joe Rantz, but it _did_ also
make it clear that he didn't make the team a winning team all by
himself; everyone worked together, and Joe Rantz was just one member
of that team.

The author of the book sought to make a story that was both interesting
and factual from the information he had available. And Joe Rantz' story,
which was the story the author had in front of him, was an interesting
story, worthy of being presented to the public. We are allowed to understand
that the other members of the team had their own stories as well, even if
not as much of those stories is known.

Point out that the book has limitations, yes, but don't condemn it for not
being a book that simply could not have been written by anyone.

John Savard

On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 22:17:26 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
>
> > Daniel James Brown's 'Boys in the Boat'
> > Broad Street Review
> > https://www.broadstreetreview.com › Articles
> > Apr 11, 2016 — The letter revealed a secret Moch's father had kept for
> > decade: He was Jewish. Brown reports that Moch wept because of “the
> > terrible pain ...
> Although your link didn't go directly to the review,
>
> https://www.broadstreetreview.com/articles/daniel-james-browns-boys-in-the-boat
>
> I did find the review, which was of the book rather than the recent
> movie based on it.
>
> At one point, the reviewer notes:
>
> "And the rival crews’ boys barely exist. (With the Germans, who are the focus
> of the competition, 'barely' is an exaggeration.)"
>
> That's true of the movie as well, but I can hardly see that as a fault. True,
> hypothetically, there would be more "human drama" in a story that followed
> two opposing teams side by side - whether the other team was in Germany
> or in California. But a story about struggling against the weather or other
> natural phenomena can also be valid, and this story is that kind of story..
>
> Following, say, rich boys in New England side by side with the team featured
> here would not work as drama, but as satire, mockery, or agitprop, and it's
> just as well we were spared that.
>
> But, then, what really cheesed me off was these paragraphs from the review:
>
> (begin quote)
> Brown goes further in his attempt to give his story weight. Near the book’s
> conclusion, he writes that as the American crew swept by the Germans,
> Hitler could have seen “heralds of his doom... (for) one day hundreds of
> thousands of boys just like them... decent and unassuming, not privileged
> or favored... just loyal, committed, and perseverant, would return to Germany
> dressed in olive drab, hunting him down.”
>
> This hyperbole seems a bit “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” overlooking as it does
> the decent, unassuming millions of Russians who broke Hitler’s armies on
> the eastern front, as well as the committed, perseverant industrial workers
> who created the war machine that many contemporary historians credit as
> the determining factor in the Allies’ victory.
> (end quote)
>
> Hey, he also didn't mention the Canadian troops!
>
> But the text quoted in the book really didn't claim that U.S. ground troops
> in Europe "won the war", just that they were part of what was fighting
> against Hitler.
>
> Neglecting workers in American factories who weren't being shot at
> while focusing on the troops is... understandable. Not finding the
> military forces... of a nation every bit as evil as Nazi Germany...
> worth a mention, if only to avoid muddying the waters with disclaimers
> and the like... is also understandable.
>
> So his choice of this to cavil about... invites me to dismiss him on
> suspicion of extreme left-wing politics.

Dismiss not, lest ye be dismissed.

> And even his first complaint seems like criticizing the book for not
> being the kind of book he would have liked to have seen written, as
> opposed to evaluating the book on its own terms. So it doesn't
> seem like a very good book review.

It is difficult to be invested in our heroes
winning a race if you do not know whom
the race is against. Well, in this story it is
against Adolf Hitler apparently. This is
unsophisticated.

All this seems to operate on the level of
cartoons in which Donald Duck or Bugs
Bunny, or in his first print representation
Captain America, go up against the Fuehrer.
To be appreciated for what they are, as works,
but not a serious examination of the issues
of the conflict in question.